Civil Law and UAE: Negligence Elements

1. Introduction

Negligence in UAE civil law concerns liability arising when a person's wrongful act or omission causes legally compensable harm to another.

For practical analysis, a negligence claim can be reduced to:

Fault / breach of duty + Damage + Causation = Civil liability

However, the precise formulation differs between mainland UAE law and the DIFC/ADGM systems. The current UAE Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, which repealed the 1985 Civil Transactions Law and entered into force on 1 June 2026.

The DIFC, by contrast, has a detailed statutory negligence framework in its Law of Obligations, expressly identifying duty, breach and causation, with damage/loss forming the compensable consequence.

2. Meaning of Negligence

Negligence generally means a failure to exercise the level of care legally required in the circumstances, resulting in harm to another person.

It may arise through:

• a positive act;
• an omission;
• careless advice;
• defective professional services;
• unsafe premises;
• negligent construction;
• careless handling of property;
• negligent financial or commercial representations;
• medical or professional error; or
• failure to take reasonable precautions.

Simple example

A property manager knows that a staircase is dangerously defective but fails to repair or warn occupants. A visitor falls and suffers injury.

The legal analysis asks:

1. Was there a duty of care?
2. Was the duty breached?
3. Did the breach cause the injury?
4. Was legally compensable damage suffered?

3. Negligence Under Mainland UAE Civil Law

Under the UAE civil-law tradition, tortious liability is generally founded upon fault, damage and causal connection.

A particularly useful UAE judicial formulation is recorded in Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019, cited by the DIFC Court in BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC. The principle stated there was that liability, whether contractual or tortious, requires the coexistence of the relevant elements, and breach alone is insufficient where damage has not been established.

The current Civil Transactions Law should be used for disputes governed by the law effective from 1 June 2026; older cases applying the 1985 Civil Transactions Law must be read in their historical statutory context.

4. Main Elements of Negligence

Element 1 — Duty / Legal Obligation

The first question is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the claimant.

A duty can arise from:

• statute;
• contractual relationship;
• professional relationship;
• ownership or occupation of premises;
• control over a dangerous activity;
• relationship between employer and employee;
• provision of professional information;
• undertaking responsibility;
• circumstances creating foreseeable risk.

In the DIFC, Article 18 of the Law of Obligations provides that a duty of care generally arises where it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's acts or omissions could cause loss to the claimant, subject to the statutory qualifications.

Example

A doctor, engineer, accountant, landlord or employer may owe different forms of legally recognized responsibility because of the nature of the relationship.

5. Element 2 — Breach of Duty

Once a duty exists, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to meet the required standard of care.

In the DIFC, Article 21 provides the statutory standard:

• the defendant must exercise reasonable care to avoid causing loss;
• the assessment considers the probability and likely seriousness of the loss;
• reasonable care generally means the care exercised by an ordinarily careful and skilled person engaged in the relevant activity;
• professionals are judged against the standard applicable to an ordinarily skilled professional possessing the relevant special skill. 

Example

If an engineer identifies a serious structural risk but ignores it without reasonable justification, the failure may constitute breach.

6. Reasonable Person Standard

The reasonable person concept prevents negligence from being determined merely by hindsight.

The question is essentially:

What level of care should reasonably have been exercised in the circumstances?

Relevant considerations can include:

• probability of harm;
• seriousness of potential harm;
• knowledge available at the time;
• professional standards;
• available precautions;
• cost and practicality of precautions;
• nature of the activity;
• relationship between the parties.

Therefore, an unfortunate outcome does not automatically establish negligence.

7. Professional Negligence

Professionals are not ordinarily judged by the same standard as an unskilled person.

The relevant professional context may include:

• doctors;
• engineers;
• lawyers;
• accountants;
• architects;
• financial professionals;
• surveyors;
• consultants;
• technical specialists.

In George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086, the DIFC Court discussed Article 21 and explained the distinction between ordinary reasonable care and the standard applicable to a professional possessing special skill.

Principle

Professional status does not create automatic liability; the claimant must establish that the applicable standard of care was not met.

8. Element 3 — Damage or Loss

A breach without legally recognizable damage will generally not produce a compensatory negligence claim.

Damage can potentially include:

Physical injury

• bodily injury;
• disability;
• medical expenses.

Property damage

• destruction;
• deterioration;
• repair costs.

Financial loss

• directly caused economic loss;
• certain forms of pure economic loss where additional legal requirements are satisfied.

Other legally recognized harm

Depending upon the applicable law, compensation can also include certain moral or non-economic damage.

The important point is:

Negligence is not established merely because someone behaved carelessly; compensable harm must also be established.

This principle is reflected in the UAE judicial formulation cited in BAM Higgs & Hill.

9. Pure Economic Loss

Pure economic loss requires particular care.

A person may suffer financial loss without physical injury or property damage.

For example:

An investor receives incorrect information and makes an investment that loses value.

In the DIFC, Article 20 imposes additional requirements for pure economic loss, including responsibility assumed by the defendant and reasonable reliance by the claimant.

This prevents negligence law from becoming an unlimited mechanism for recovering every economic consequence arising from careless conduct.

10. Element 4 — Causation

Causation connects the defendant's breach to the claimant's loss.

The claimant must establish:

The defendant's breach caused the relevant loss.

The DIFC statutory approach is particularly explicit. Article 10 requires the claimant to demonstrate that, but for the defendant's conduct, the claimant would not have suffered the loss, and that the conduct was a substantial cause of the loss.

Simple example

A driver negligently crashes into a vehicle.

Negligent driving → collision → vehicle damage

The causal connection is relatively direct.

But if several independent events occur between the negligent act and the loss, causation becomes more difficult.

11. Intervening Cause

A later event can sometimes interrupt the causal chain.

The DIFC Law of Obligations recognizes an intervening-act principle: where a supervening event causes the defendant's conduct to cease being an operative cause of the loss, liability may be limited accordingly.

Example

A contractor negligently leaves a minor defect.

Later, an independent and extraordinary event completely destroys the structure.

The court may have to determine whether the original negligence remained an operative cause of the claimed loss.

12. Foreseeability

Causation and foreseeability are closely related but conceptually distinct.

The claimant must establish a causal connection, while the law may restrict recovery to consequences sufficiently connected to the wrongful conduct.

The DIFC damages framework, for example, provides a foreseeability limitation for certain losses.

Thus:

Not every consequence that follows factually from negligence will necessarily be recoverable.

13. Contributory Negligence

The claimant's own conduct can affect liability.

For example:

A defendant negligently creates a dangerous condition, but the claimant ignores an obvious warning and substantially contributes to the resulting injury.

The claimant's conduct may reduce compensation depending upon the applicable UAE legal regime.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly provides that negligence liability is reduced to the extent that the claimant's own negligent acts or omissions contributed to the loss.

This reflects an important principle:

The defendant's negligence does not necessarily make the defendant responsible for every consequence where the claimant materially contributed to the harm.

14. Mitigation of Loss

After harm occurs, the injured party is generally expected to take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessarily increasing the loss.

For example, if property is damaged:

• reasonable emergency repairs may be required;
• the claimant should avoid unnecessary additional damage;
• reasonable mitigation expenses may themselves be recoverable.

The DIFC framework expressly addresses mitigation and limits recovery where loss could reasonably have been reduced by the injured party.

15. Burden of Establishing Negligence

A claimant must generally establish the factual foundations of the negligence claim.

The claimant therefore needs to establish, as applicable:

1. existence of duty;
2. breach;
3. causation;
4. damage;
5. amount/nature of loss.

In Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139, the Court rejected a negligence claim where the evidence did not adequately establish that the defendant caused the alleged psychological harm. The claimant's own statements concerning the cause of the condition were insufficient to establish causation.

Lesson

Pleading causation is not enough; causation must be supported by evidence.

16. Negligence and Evidence

Different negligence cases require different evidence.

Documentary evidence

• contracts;
• emails;
• notices;
• invoices;
• safety records;
• inspection reports;
• photographs;
• medical records.

Expert evidence

Particularly important for:

• construction;
• engineering;
• medical negligence;
• accounting;
• valuation;
• technical failures.

Witness evidence

Useful for:

• what happened;
• warnings given;
• instructions;
• conversations;
• observations.

Electronic evidence

Increasingly relevant to:

• digital communications;
• system logs;
• CCTV;
• electronic records;
• automated systems.

The ultimate question remains whether the evidence establishes the required elements.

17. Negligence and Representations

Negligence can arise where a person provides information or representations that another reasonably relies upon.

In Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038, the pleaded negligence claim concerned representations allegedly made negligently. The Court applied the DIFC Law of Obligations, including Article 10 on causation and Article 18 concerning foreseeability of loss.

This is particularly important for:

• financial advice;
• investment information;
• professional reports;
• commercial representations;
• technical information.

18. Negligence and Employer Liability

An employer can potentially face civil consequences for negligent conduct occurring within the scope of employment, depending upon the applicable legal framework.

In Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150, the Court considered the conduct of a leasing officer and issues of negligence, causation and liability.

The case illustrates that the court must examine:

• what the employee did;
• what duty existed;
• whether the conduct breached that duty;
• whether the conduct caused the claimant's loss;
• and the applicable rules governing employer responsibility.

19. Negligence and Jurisdiction

Negligence can also affect jurisdiction in DIFC litigation.

In Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017, the Court explained that a negligence claim requires both careless conduct and resulting loss; the impact of the negligent conduct is therefore an essential part of the cause of action.

Similarly, Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd [2011] DIFC CA 003 explained that an "incident" for jurisdictional purposes can include an essential element of the conduct or loss necessary to establish a tort claim.

This demonstrates that negligence elements can have procedural as well as substantive consequences.

20. Negligence and Contract

A single factual situation may potentially generate both:

• contractual liability; and
• tortious/negligence liability.

For example, an engineer may have:

• contractual obligations to a client; and
• a duty arising independently from the applicable tort law.

The court must determine:

1. the contractual obligations;
2. any independent legal duty;
3. breach;
4. causation;
5. damage;
6. applicable remedies.

The existence of a contract does not automatically mean every careless act becomes a separate tort claim.

21. Negligence and Damage Assessment

After establishing negligence, the court must assess the recoverable loss.

The DIFC framework requires reasonable certainty of loss. It also recognizes future loss and loss of opportunity in appropriate circumstances.

Potential categories include:

• medical expenses;
• repair costs;
• lost income;
• business interruption;
• property loss;
• certain economic losses;
• future losses;
• other legally compensable damage.

The claimant should establish the amount with appropriate evidence.

22. Six Major UAE/DIFC Case Laws

1. Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

Importance: One of the clearest DIFC authorities setting out the statutory negligence framework.

Principle: Negligence requires duty, breach and causation resulting in loss; contributory negligence can reduce liability.

The Court separately analyzed duty, breach, causation and damages.

2. George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086

Importance: Explains the standard of reasonable care.

Principle: The claimant must establish that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care; professional persons are assessed by the standard applicable to an ordinarily skilled professional possessing the relevant skill.

3. Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017

Importance: Demonstrates the essential connection between negligent conduct and resulting loss.

Principle: A negligence claim requires both want of due care and proof that the carelessness caused loss.

4. Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139

Importance: Illustrates the evidentiary requirement for causation.

Principle: Merely alleging that the defendant caused psychological injury is insufficient; the evidence must establish the causal connection.

5. Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038

Importance: Illustrates negligence in the context of allegedly misleading representations.

Principle: The Court applied the DIFC Law of Obligations' causation and duty framework, including the "but for" causation approach and reasonable foreseeability of loss.

6. BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC & Amer Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106

Importance: Particularly useful for understanding UAE judicial treatment of civil liability.

The judgment cited Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019, explaining that liability requires the relevant elements of fault/breach, damage and causal connection; breach alone is insufficient to establish compensation.

7. Dr Lothar Ludwig Hardt & Hardt Trading FZE v Hussain Al Habib Sajwani & Peter Riddoch [2009] DIFC CFI 036

Importance: The case involved allegations concerning directors' duties, representations and negligence.

Principle: A negligence/tort claim must have an appropriate factual foundation, including conduct and resulting damage; the Court also considered the significance of where the essential elements of a tort occurred for DIFC jurisdiction.

8. Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd [2011] DIFC CA 003

Importance: Important for understanding the relationship between the elements of tort and DIFC jurisdiction.

Principle: An "incident" can encompass an essential element of conduct or loss/damage necessary to establish a tort claim.

23. Negligence: Step-by-Step Legal Test

A practical UAE negligence analysis can be expressed as:

Step 1 — Identify the relationship

Who are the claimant and defendant?

Step 2 — Identify the source of duty

Why does the defendant owe a legal duty?

Step 3 — Determine the required standard

What level of care was legally required?

Step 4 — Identify the alleged breach

What did the defendant do or fail to do?

Step 5 — Establish actual damage

What loss or injury occurred?

Step 6 — Establish causation

Would the loss have occurred without the defendant's conduct?

Step 7 — Examine intervening causes

Did another event break the causal chain?

Step 8 — Consider claimant contribution

Did the claimant contribute to the loss?

Step 9 — Consider foreseeability and remoteness

Is the claimed loss sufficiently connected to the breach?

Step 10 — Quantify compensation

What loss has been established with sufficient certainty?

24. Important Distinctions

25. Mainland UAE vs DIFC/ADGM

This distinction is essential for examinations and legal research.

Mainland UAE

The mainland UAE framework is principally based on federal civil legislation and the UAE courts' interpretation of fault, damage and causation. Current disputes must account for Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026.

DIFC

The DIFC Law of Obligations provides an express negligence structure involving:

Duty → Breach → Causation → Loss/Damages

It also contains detailed rules on professional standards, pure economic loss, causation, intervening events and contributory negligence.

ADGM

ADGM has a separate legal framework based substantially on English common law and its own court procedures. Therefore, ADGM negligence analysis should not simply be treated as mainland UAE negligence law. ADGM maintains a separate published database of its court cases.

26. Exam-Oriented Summary

Negligence in UAE civil law requires a structured examination of the defendant's wrongful conduct, the claimant's legally protected interest, resulting damage and the causal connection between the conduct and damage.

Core elements

1. Duty / legal responsibility
2. Breach or fault
3. Damage/loss
4. Causal connection
5. Applicable limitations such as contributory negligence, mitigation and foreseeability

Important cases

• Haya Spa v Harper Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150 — four-part negligence analysis.
• George v Gloria Beauty Lounge [2016] DIFC SCT 086 — reasonable/professional standard of care.
• Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital [2009] DIFC CFI 017 — negligence requires careless conduct and resulting loss.
• Ludiala v Lucaan [2020] DIFC SCT 139 — causation must be proved by evidence.
• Alawwal Capital v Rasmala [2023] DIFC CFI 038 — causation and negligent representations.
• BAM Higgs & Hill v Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106 — UAE judicial formulation of fault, damage and causation.
• Hardt v Sajwani [2009] DIFC CFI 036 — factual foundation of tort and negligence.
• Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 003 — essential elements of tort and causation/loss.

Short formula

Negligence = Legal Duty + Breach/Fault + Causation + Compensable Damage, subject to contributory negligence, intervening causes, foreseeability, mitigation and other applicable limitations.

Important: The DIFC authorities above are UAE judicial authorities but are not automatically binding precedents for mainland UAE courts. For a mainland UAE case, the applicable provisions of the current Civil Transactions Law and relevant Federal/local UAE court jurisprudence should be examined separately.